If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

All epic means is that a song is big, grandiose, and cinematic. By this definition, Green Day's last 2 albums could easily be called epic, regardless of whether or not they're good albums, because that are big, grandiose, and cinematic. It can easily be an apt description. While I haven't heard this third album, I could see it meeting that definition, again regardless of quality. Something can be epic sounding and still suck.

Tom DeLonge did not just say Angels and Airways were epic, which they were if you want to get technical. He said they would change the way people listened to music and would be a revolution bigger than U2, Pink Floyd, and the Beatles combined. This is a million times different than simply calling something epic, which is a mere descriptor.

I'm sure at least one band or singer you like has called something they've done epic. I'm sure most musicians have. It's just an incredibly silly thing to criticize a band for.

I'm just going to quote this entire thing instead of writing it because it's exactly what I would have said. People overuse the word epic, but that wouldn't bother me at all if they used it fucking correctly. Epic does not mean "great" or "awesome" or "vaguely pretty enjoyable" the way people use it these days. Epic is...well just read the above.

I don't think I'm like this anymore, though many on this forum might think otherwise.
As I've grown up some. back in the day. I even use myself as an example. reflected on things that happened in the past. I have a better understanding of things now. At least I can admit it now. I have somehow caused this situation by mentioning how I used to act on here. how I've changed. I'm a relatively normal poster now

Let's just go with the fact that you guys don't think it'd be arrogant to use it in its actual meaning... what makes you guys think Billie Joe didn't mean it the way most people use it?

Because of the way he describes iUno! and iDos!. He describes them as "power-pop" and "garage-y rock". That doesn't say anything about the quality of those albums. So when he calls iTre! for "epic", then I think it is safe to assume that he means it in the word's proper meaning. It is just like an epic poem. Believe me, there are a lot of epics out there which really suck, but the poems are still epic. Had he said that the first album would be great, the second greater and the third to be epic, then it would have been a different story.

I don't like where this is going. I'm gonna check out the 3 new albums (seriously, who needs THREE albums consisting mostly of filler when they could put out ONE good album instead), but my expectations are so low they don't even exist. I don't like the song at all. It's not bad like Cruising California, it's boring, which is far worse.

Three albums in a few months. What next? 10 albums in 10 weeks, each album featuring a single instrument - the first album would be just the vocals for all the songs, second album just one guitar layer, third album bass, fourth album second guitar layer and so on. Collect all ten (they would each be limited to 15.000 copies only) and you can mix them together and have the full album? Whooops, I might have given them an idea...

I fail to see what's wrong to release that many albums. If it were band you liked, you'd be incredibly happy to get that much material in such a short span of time. If the Offspring did it, you guys would be pumped. And don't even come back with "YEAH BUT THEY WOULDN'T CAUSE IT'S STUPID" because you don't know that they wouldn't or that they think it's dumb. (Also before you accuse me of the same thing, I'm not saying they don't think it's dumb. I'm using a hypothetical).

Bands like Husker Du, the Mountain Goats, the Replacements, Black Flag, the Beatles, and tons more were known for releasing multiple albums a year. In early rock 'n roll, bands usually would release an album and an EP of new material each calendar year, and sometimes would release two albums. Most early punk bands released a massive amount of material in a short period of time. This isn't some major unprecedented thing. The advertising for it is different, but at the same time, advertising for a new album is usually directed by the label, not the band.

It's weird because I'm defending a song I more or less find mediocre (if promising in terms of style) from a band I don't really care about anymore. But at the same time, most of the criticism towards them in this thread is obnoxiously knee-jerk and based on incredibly flimsy arguments from people who are picking apart anything that they can to support pre-conceived opinions of the band. I mean fuck, I'm one of the most close-minded and hyperbolic people on the board when it comes to music opinions but even I don't get some of the stuff in the thread. It's just that so few of the criticisms are about quality (and the few that exist, I haven't argued with-please notice that) but are instead based on these weird superficial assumptions about how the band works.

I fail to see what's wrong to release that many albums. If it were band you liked, you'd be incredibly happy to get that much material in such a short span of time. If the Offspring did it, you guys would be pumped.

i wish offspring could do that but they only put out 3 studio albums in the last 10 years

Because of the way he describes iUno! and iDos!. He describes them as "power-pop" and "garage-y rock". That doesn't say anything about the quality of those albums. So when he calls iTre! for "epic", then I think it is safe to assume that he means it in the word's proper meaning. It is just like an epic poem. Believe me, there are a lot of epics out there which really suck, but the poems are still epic. Had he said that the first album would be great, the second greater and the third to be epic, then it would have been a different story.

You're right. I mean, when I read it, I did take it in the traditional sense, but then I began to question the certainty that that's how it was meant. However, you've affirmed it.

Anyway, we'll see if Green Day can actually manage to write an "epic" album. I have a feeling it's going to be as epic as AI was a rock opera, which is pretty much not at all. And that's why I found it arrogant.

I fail to see what's wrong to release that many albums. If it were band you liked, you'd be incredibly happy to get that much material in such a short span of time. If the Offspring did it, you guys would be pumped. And don't even come back with "YEAH BUT THEY WOULDN'T CAUSE IT'S STUPID" because you don't know that they wouldn't or that they think it's dumb. (Also before you accuse me of the same thing, I'm not saying they don't think it's dumb. I'm using a hypothetical).

Bands like Husker Du, the Mountain Goats, the Replacements, Black Flag, the Beatles, and tons more were known for releasing multiple albums a year. In early rock 'n roll, bands usually would release an album and an EP of new material each calendar year, and sometimes would release two albums. Most early punk bands released a massive amount of material in a short period of time. This isn't some major unprecedented thing. The advertising for it is different, but at the same time, advertising for a new album is usually directed by the label, not the band.

It's weird because I'm defending a song I more or less find mediocre (if promising in terms of style) from a band I don't really care about anymore. But at the same time, most of the criticism towards them in this thread is obnoxiously knee-jerk and based on incredibly flimsy arguments from people who are picking apart anything that they can to support pre-conceived opinions of the band. I mean fuck, I'm one of the most close-minded and hyperbolic people on the board when it comes to music opinions but even I don't get some of the stuff in the thread. It's just that so few of the criticisms are about quality (and the few that exist, I haven't argued with-please notice that) but are instead based on these weird superficial assumptions about how the band works.

I'm not saying The Offspring wouldn't do it (I think it's unlikely because they take time with their records), I'm not so sure I'd be more stoked than if they'd simply release a single CD of new songs. Hell, I even think an album is better if it's kept rather short, 12 songs, maybe 13 but no more, simply because it's less likely for it to get boring.

And there is a difference between releasing an album every year or so (or even 6 months apart) and 3 full-length albums over the course of what, 5 months? And given how much filler the last Green Day album had I'm not sure if they can manage 3 great albums in such a short time. It could be done I guess, but Green Day's recent efforts make me skeptical if they are the right band to try it. And if the new single is any indicator they should really just stick with one album and get rid of all the filler songs. And it's all even more difficult to work if the 3 albums are supposed to be conceptually connected. I'm not saying it can't be done and if it would be done properly then kudos to them. But I'm worried that it'll end up being a disaster.